Exposure limits & testing

There is an overwhelming amount of electro magnetic radiation in our world today and it has increased substantially since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, which was then based on science from the 1980s, which is quite outdated now. I am personally aware how exposure to routers, towers, smart meters, etc., negatively affects life because the negative effect all of this is having on my life. If this technology was actually safe, I wouldn’t experience heat flushing through my body so much so that I sweat, prickly feelings on my skin, ringing in my ears, the inability to sleep if a router is left on and negative thoughts when in a home that has a router or if I am knowingly or unknowingly in close enough proximity to a tower. My understanding is that the Federal Communications Commission was created to protect public health. The body of scientific evidence showing that there is definite biological, neurological and mental health harm from wireless technology has grown. One cannot go to a movie theatre without being exposed to electro magnetic radiation because many theaters mounted 5G technology onto their buildings. Churches were paid to allow 5G technology to be encased within a new structure that makes it look like it was a part of the church all along. There are 5G structures mounted on local streets where I used to shop. When I drive on the highways in California, it is impossible not to drive close to a 5G tower and I feel the negative effects. The FCC was created to be a regulatory agency to protect human health. It is unconscionable that an agency of the American government would turn its back on the very people it serves. I am citing the following study: Lai, H. (1994). Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. In: Lin, J.C. (eds) Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2542-4_2

Across the nation many residents are concerned about the small cell wireless antennas being deployed in our community. These powerful antennas, part of the next generation of wireless technology (5G), are being placed in close proximity to our homes, schools and other places where we engage in the activities of our daily lives, even though there is no science that assures their safety. This is an undeniable risk. The rapid rollout of the next generation in wireless communications known as “5G." In neighborhoods like ours across America, so-called “small cell” antennas need to be installed close to homes and apartments to facilitate this new technology. The deployment raises serious issues that should concern everyone in our community: safety, security, privacy, property values and health. The FCC’s human exposure guidelines for the radio frequency (RF) microwave radiation used for this technology are decades out of date and the agency has dismissed the results of decade-long research on RF microwave radiation and human health completed last year by the National Toxicology Program that showed “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” Because the health and safety of our families is at stake, we demand a moratorium on further deployment of 5G until it can be proven safe. NOTE: This is a security and privacy issue. Wireless networks are relatively easy to hack compared to fiber-optic wired networks. Data from your phone and other wireless personal or home devices can be easily captured and marketed. In addition, small cell installations have the capacity to house cameras for facial recognition, as they do in China. What guarantees do we have that the technology will not be abused? This is a safety issue. Local zoning codes are meant to protect our safety, but the wireless industry is fighting those codes. Most existing utility poles (the preferred location for small cell antennas because it’s cheap) were not designed to withstand the hundreds of pounds of additional equipment, and severe weather events could bring down the poles, causing damage to our homes and property. Our local officials should have the right to decide where those new antennas and their equipment are placed. But perhaps most troubling is the news about our health. A recent (2018) peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health – the most prestigious health research organization in the world – proved that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation, the kind emitted from all wireless devices and their infrastructure, causes cancer and DNA damage. Not maybe. Their language says there was “clear evidence of carcinogenicity.” We urge you to visit www.AmericansForResponsibleTech.org to learn more about these issues and what you can do to protect your home and family.

It's inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. A review and change to the policy is indeed warranted. Please note that EMFs do have an effect on humans, especially children, bees etc. It's time to revise the standards towards much safer shields and less radiation. Thank you.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because of cell tower proximity to my home, as well as a smart meter that is located near my home's bedrooms. My wife has had numerous health issues the past 7 years and I am concerned she may be sensitive to RF radiation.

The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. Please read this report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583 A court ruling has determined that the FCC did not properly consider the scientific evidence available when it made its decision NOT to update its human exposure guidelines. It is inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. Please consider the evidence regarding the ongoing dangers of wifi use in school classrooms. Thank you, Thom Speidel

Hello, The world and technology has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. It's inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. For instance a recently published article in Frontiers Cardiovascular Medicine in February 2025 references a study of the potential for red blood cell aggregation from radiofrequency radiation to occur in the general population. Rouleaux formation due to mobile phone exposure is not good for you. Further studies are needed to assess the incidence of this occurrence, in addition to defining which power densities and frequencies put individuals at risk. The FCC must address studies and reflect the risks and harm of these frequencies to protect the public. Thankyou, Christy White

I am concerned that the FCC has not updated its policies and exposure limit guidelines for RF radiation since 1996, well before the proliferation of RF technologies like cell phones, cell towers and WiFi. These antiquated guidelines were based on plastic and gel models of adult male heads, not on the thin, vulnerable skulls of children or even smaller adults. The BioInitiative Report, first compiled relevant research on these technologies, starting in 2012, with updates in 2014 and 2022. These studies show overwhelmingly that RF radiation negatively affects humans and that certain people who are EMF hypersensitive are profoundly negatively affected. The summaries of these research studies can be found here: https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ I am particularly concerned that the FCC review and retest their guidelines because I became RF sensitive myself after the imposition of a RF transmitting electric (Smart) meter on my home in 2011. The device caused health problems for me. When I sought to have the device removed, I was met with the electric company's argument that it was well under the FCC limit for RF transmissions. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that allow such high RF exposure levels for its citizens. The FCC should revisit and revise these extremely high and harmful limits to protect our health and homes.

I am horrified by the fact that the FCC has not updated its human exposure guidelines in 30 years! Our children are being subjected to experiments with EMFs both in school and at home. The FCC should require evidence that subjecting kids to this radiation from multiple sources for 15-20 hours a day (in school, at home, and in between) is SAFE, rather than the other side having to prove it's dangerous. Please listen to the people (parents, kids, teachers, and others) who have experienced harmful effects of EMFs first-hand. You should be open to the research on this topic as it affects every person in this country, especially kids. Here is just one study: Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults. Morris, R., et al. IEEE Access: The Journal for Rapid Open Access Publishing Doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2478701. (2015). Thank you for taking a stand!

Subject: Public Comment: Urgent Need to Reevaluate RF Radiation Limits Based on Current Scientific Evidence Dear Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I am a scientist and, as a scientist, I have learned to be careful about my own biases and to keep an open mind about things I don’t fully know or understand. Technology is progressing at unprecedented rates and exposing humanity and all life on Earth to unknown effects. Scientists try to anticipate unwanted consequences of technological developments, but unfortunately, industry interests often contradict cautious development. It is deeply concerning that the FCC continues to maintain that its current safety limits adequately protect public health, while effectively ignoring a large and growing body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating biological harm at non-thermal levels. We are at a critical point in time where we must rigorously assess the risks over the potential benefits. The advent of social media, technology relying on 5G, and the ever-increasing development of energy-consuming artificial intelligence are creating unprecedented pushes on the use of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), making it fully omnipresent. The science already suggests that technology developed more than a decade ago has real biological effects on the central nervous system and cellular health. Key research in this field underscores this reality: • National Toxicology Program (2018): The multi-year NTP rodent study conducted by the U.S. government provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity (specifically heart schwannomas) and some evidence of malignant brain gliomas linked to non-thermal RFR exposure. • Hardell et al. (2013): Extensive epidemiological pooled analyses demonstrated a statistically significant association between long-term mobile and cordless phone use and increased risks for glioma and acoustic neuroma. • Coureau et al. (2014): The French national CERENAT case-control study found significantly higher risks for central nervous system tumors, including gliomas and meningiomas, among heavy, long-term mobile phone users. With recent technological developments, it is absolutely necessary to revisit these studies, further them, ensure new studies are conducted by independent scientists not affiliated with industry, and actually heed their findings. It is time for the FCC to take meaningful action to update safety guidelines and protect humanity from these uncontrolled technological developments. Sincerely, Barbara Cerf-Allen, PhD.

The world has changed dramatically since the FCC adopted its human exposure guidelines in 1996, based on science from the 1980s. It's inconceivable and outrageous that the FCC claims to be protecting public health while it ignores the large and growing body of science showing biological harm even at non-thermal levels. . The science and data is readily available and the FCC has turned a blind eye for way too many years. It is time to do the right thing and update these exposure guidelines in a manner that falls in line with the current scientific data, For example this study shows how detrimental exposure is to our children (and children represent future of our country). This is just one of a plethora of studies available on PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31927574/ The data in 1000's of studies like this show that that current guidelines are outdated nowhere near accurate for the current sea of wireless radiation we are bathed in day after day without our consent. These guidelines MUST be updated to provide the level of safety Americans should be able to expect from their government.